Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Stepping Stones, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

On July 19th, Gerard Jackson, posted an article with BrookesNews.Com entitled, “Why capital gains taxes retard economic growth”.  I couldn’t help being struck by the obviousness of his argument. He outlines historically why capital gains taxes hurt the economy.

I once explained to someone that the demagogues who demand a higher capital gains tax as a matter of fairness know that it is in reality a tax on the poor…who pay no federal income taxes. Why is it a tax on the poor? Because corporations don’t pay these taxes, they raise prices. Taxes are a cost of doing business. The only people who pay taxes are those who can’t pass them along to someone else. Unfortunately, as taxes and regulations increase, prices increase. That in turn diminishes the purchasing power of everyone and as a result only so much of a product or service will be sold.

Eventually people will go out of business and the ones left will have cornered the market; and no matter how high the taxes go up, or how regulations increase the cost of doing business, they will be able to survive because they will be the only ones left to provide those needed products or services. That's why the really large companies and corporations love both taxes and regulations. In combination they do more to stifle competition than anything.

The historical truth of this in the United States goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was brought on by an excise tax on whiskey in 1791. This scheme was promoted by  the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who was a believer in central planning and an all powerful central government.

Who were the most ardent supporters of this tax? The whiskey distillers in the large metropolitan centers! Why? In those days travel was difficult at best. No roads and bad roads was the rule outside of metropolitan areas and so farmers had to haul their corn into the towns and cities by mule pack. There is only so much corn you can load on the back of a mule and each farmer probably only had a few mules. Needless to say this required multiple trips, so they turned their corn into moonshine. This required less transportation, less work, less time away and the profits were greater. This cut in on the profits of the large distillers and so they loved the idea of added costs via taxes on the farmers.

His article shows that President Nixon, (who created the EPA and OSHA by the way) raised the capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 49 per cent.  Nixon was assured by his Treasury Department that a capital gains tax increase would raise $1.1 billion in the first year and then $3.2 billion a year until 1975.

The result: “revenue from the tax dropped sharply with realized gains from the sale of capital assets falling by 34 per cent, and the stock issues of struggling companies fell from about 500 in 1969 to precisely four in 1975.” “High capital gains taxes are a lousy revenue raiser.” Gerard goes on to say:
“In 1978 Congress slashed capital gains taxes; this resulted in an explosion in the supply of venture capital. By the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds took place, from $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6 billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983 rising to $23.7 billion in 1985.

By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 per cent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough, to conventional economists that is, venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression.

This was about 400 per cent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion. Compare this situation to the period from 1969 to the 1970s which saw venture capital outlays collapse by about 90 per cent. All because of Nixon's ill-considered capital gains tax. But then Nixon never professed to know anything about economics, unlike most of his media critics.”
So now we see the same arguments being promoted that have been shown to be historical claptrap. Those who promote it denigrate those who point this out, just as in time past. Ignorance cannot be claimed here. The historical record going back centuries is replete with the evidence to show that this is true.

So what can we glean from all of this? What does this have to do with pest control? This is actually a truly “green” issue. The problem is that this is a mind set. People who should know better promote things that have historical underpinnings that show exactly what happens with a specific thing is done.

We have central planners telling us that;
• We don’t need pesticides.
• Chemicals all cause cancer, endocrine disruption, AHDH, autism, asthma, etc.
• Genetically modified foods are evil.
• Organic food techniques will feed the world.
• Gasoline driven cars have to go.
• Oil is a scarce commodity.
• Corn is better used as a fuel than a food.
• Wind and solar power can fulfill the needs of a technologically advanced society.
• Manufacturing causes global warming.
And they are all wrong. Central planners are usually bureaucrats who have never done anything except be bureaucrats; and they generally know very little about the subjects to which they are making major decisions about, and have little or no practical experience in these fields.  And even when they do their decisions have more to do with ideological goals rather than following the facts, whether they are from history or science

As Thomas Sowell has noted in his book, Intellectuals and Society, no matter how intelligent an elite may be they can't possible know as much as the population as a whole.  Furthermore, it is impossible for any small group of people to be able to anticipate and understand all the possible permutations and respond to unexpected events that require decision making on a daily basis.  It was thus so in the Soviet Union and it is so everywhere else in the world.  Perhaps not to that extent, but true none the less.  It’s even worse when they are in cahoots with Non Governmental Organizations that are environmental activists such as Greenpeace and their like.

We have the historical pathways of the past. Are we using these pathways of the past as stepping stones to the future? The answer is no; since it appears that ideology trumps history as well as science. 

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Friday, July 30, 2010

Stepping Stones

By Rich Kozlovich

History is the pathway of the past; and should be the stepping stone to the future. We keep hearing the activists demand that more products be removed from the market because they cause terrible health problems in children. This, in spite of the fact that when this has been done in the past there were terrible consequences to the health of children!

They make all of these claims that it is “for the children” and yet I have to ask; if they are so concerned about the children in the first world, why do they distain the lives and health of the children in the third world?

Huge numbers of children have suffered and died unnecessarily from “green” policies that banned pesticides and genetically modified foods. Yet we only continue to hear all sorts of theoretical, speculative claims about pesticides and GMO’s causing a host of potential disasters from the media. Even if there was a grain of truth in these claims, the benefits would seriously outweigh any potential risks. Why do we keep ignoring the facts?

The events surrounding pesticide bans in the undeveloped world should be lesson enough to show that these types of actions are detrimental to the public health; yet we still go along with the activist’s nonsense. We all want to be green; yet we have no idea what that means today; and I can guarantee you that we will be shocked as to what that will mean tomorrow!

Everyone from my generation remembers that great comic strip “Peanuts”. One scenario was repeated over and over again was Lucy offering to hold the football for poor Charlie Brown to kick. Charlie always knew that Lucy would pull the ball out just at the last minute and he would fall on his back. Why was that funny? Because they would go through this dance about how she “always” pulled the ball out at the last minute and she would swear that this time it would be different; and he fell for it every time. Believing that activists can be believed to keep a bargain is exactly the same.

No agreement made with the activists will be kept by them because they have no command and control structure. If one group makes a deal with our industry another group will attack them and us. No agreement will be honored by them and no matter what agreements are made with governmental authorities; they will be overturned when some activist group demands it.

What probably sickens me the most of all is the worldwide media! In spite of the vast amount of evidence that the activists are directly and indirectly responsible for the death of tens of millions; and the needless suffering of hundreds of millions more because of the implementation of environmentalist’s policies, the media mostly remains silent. By remaining silent or promoting greenie ideas they are as blood guilty as Walter Duranty was when he won the Pulitzer Prize for say that Stalin wasn’t starving his people to death.

Industry information sources also do not challenge these people because they say that we can’t win in the court of public opinion, or they are not in a position to do so. If we never challenge them every time they make outrageous claims, how do we know? At the very least we could make information available to those inside the industry that will give them the ammunition to defend the industry.

It is painfully obvious to me that environmental activists intend to destroy developed societies; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering. It is also painfully obvious to me that the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries will not have any problem compromising; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering.

I can at least understand the youthful following of these groups, “who are attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the ‘movement’”. “The "movement" provides them with an outlet" “They protest against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation." "It is a truly religio-psychological phenomenon.” The clouded vision of the green movement is one of bio-harmony; like a beautiful rainbow. That is romantic nonsense and Industry has no reason, nor excuse for such embracing such delusions.

Greenies demand perfection. The best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfections. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to improve what becomes the acceptable level of imperfection, but the solutions presented by the greenies ignore and abandon the most effective system for overcoming imperfection the world has ever known. Capitalism! Imperfections are weeded out by the profit motive. If something isn’t working it is dismissed and replaced by something that does. And if the dominant companies refuse to innovate…someone else will come along and innovate and the dominant companies will be out of business or cease being dominant.

IBM gave Bill Gates DOS because “because everyone knows that the money is in the hardware”. Much of what Microsoft and Apple used as the basis for their empires was thrown away by IBM and Xerox.

My mother hates Wal-Mart because it put small businesses out of business. So? Many of those people went to work for Wal-Mart and ended up in a better financial situation than they did working sixteen hours a day for themselves. Wal-Mart is today what Sears was fifty years ago. And fifty years from now someone else will be what Wal-Mart is today.

When Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey monopolized the oil industry did things get better or worse for the nation? Let’s take a look at this. Rockefeller believed it was necessary to take over the oil industry because he believed it was the patriotic thing to do. Shocking isn’t it? In reality he was right! Because the price of oil was based on availability, and no one knew when the next gusher was going to come in. The fluctuation of the price of oil was so dramatic that it was difficult for industry to plan. Rockefeller reasoned that if he controlled all the oil it would stabilize the price; and it did. It might be noted that he didn’t crush all the oil companies…many of them asked to be taken over because it would stabilize their profits. Before he monopolized the oil industry the price of oil in 1860 was $12.00 to $16.00 a barrel. Between 1879 and 1900 it dropped to under $1.00 a barrel in every one of those years.

The Standard Oil of New Jersey story is often touted to show that breaking up monopolies works because the five companies that Standard Oil was broken up into became much, much larger than Standard Oil ever was. That is a logical fallacy because they leave out the most important part of the story. What was the number one product of Standard Oil? Kerosene! And gasoline as a byproduct that was thrown away because they had no use for it. Obviously that changes the values of the story. They didn’t become so much larger because they were the product of a Sherman Anti-Trust Act breakup; they became so much larger because the number one product became gasoline. That is, as Paul Harvey used to say; “the rest of the story!”

We need to start telling the story, the whole story. Our whole story, and we need to do it by attacking the lies told about pesticides.
  • The activists attack us and we remain silent or we try to convince everyone to like us.
  • The activists attack us more, and we adapt and change and continue to tell everyone that we are really nice people.
  • They attack us some more, and we appease them all the more with the excuse that at least we had some input in the legislation.
  • They attack again, and we still think that we “need to compromise”.
  • We adopt their philosophies and become compliant, subservient and obedient and tell everyone that this is why they should like us.
Their successes, or I should say our failure to stand firm against them, breed more attacks, which become even more virulent.  In the meanwhile we have “compromised” so much that we don’t realize that we haven’t compromised, we have capitulated.

What I don’t know is this; does that make us slaves, fools, cowards? Or does that make us all three?

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Major Newspapers Urge an End to Ethanol Subsidy

Alan has graciously allowed me to re-publish his work, and I wish to thank him for this.  Alan has so many homerun articles that it is hard not to re-publish more of them, but that would be friendship abuse.  Alan publishes serious commentary at Warning Signs daily.  A site worth reading daily.  This article was first published here.  RK

By Alan Caruba

On Friday, July 23, the Chicago Tribune published an editorial titled “Enough Ethanol” and on Saturday, July 24, The Washington Post editorial said, “It’s time to end the excessive subsidies for corn ethanol.” On Monday, July 26, The Wall Street Journal joined the chorus.

“The best refutation of the theory of the survival of the fittest is probably the corn ethanol lobby, whose annual $6 billion in federal subsidies have managed to outlive both its record of failure and all evidence and argument,” said The Wall Street Journal.

The ethanol subsidy is on the front burner for Congress because it is due to expire and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has expressed support for cuts to the tax credit program. A twenty percent cut (nine cents per gallon) is being debated in the House Ways and Means Committee.

Jimmy Carter’s belief that ethanol could replace or reduce dependence on foreign oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions was totally bogus. Nothing about converting corn to fuel makes any sense at all. In July 2007, I laid out the facts, quoting E. Ralph Hostetter, the publisher of American Farm Publications.

“Today, 60 percent of the American corn crop is fed to U.S. livestock,” noted Hostetter. “Therefore, as the price of corn is forced up by the demands of ethanol production and many natural causes such as weather, so is the price of meat, poultry, eggs, milk and more than 3,500 products American use every day.”

I noted that, “Among the products affected by the rise in the cost of corn are cake mixes, pizza, beer, whisky, candies, cookies, corn flakes, cosmetics, instant coffee, carbonated beverages, fertilizers, vitamins, tires, toothpaste, paper products, pharmaceuticals such as aspirin and more than 85 different types of antibiotics. And that’s just a short list.”

The Washington Post looked at the cost to the consumer in the form of “decades of subsidies the government has showered on the corn ethanol industry.” It suggested that “The debate should be about why corn ethanol deserves any federal protection at all.”

Little known or understood is the fact that the federal government gives “companies that combine corn ethanol with gasoline a 45-cent tax subsidy for every gallon of corn ethanol added to gasoline.” The result is that the cost of replacing a gallon of gasoline with one of corn ethanol is $1.78. “The tax incentives alone cost the Treasury $6 billion in 2009.”

What does the consumer get? For every gallon of a gasoline-ethanol mix, the price includes less mileage. Ethanol is a poor source of power. FlexFuel vehicles run on E85 or 85% ethanol and, according to the Department of Energy, they get about 25% less mileage than a car fueled by undiluted gasoline.

For those still worried about greenhouse gas emissions, ethanol emits carbon dioxide and, since natural gas or coal is used to produce ethanol, it ends up putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the production and use of gasoline.

The Congressional Budget Office concluded that supporting ethanol through subsidies means that taxpayers are shelling out about $750 for every metric ton (2,205 pounds) of carbon that, in theory, is kept out of the atmosphere.

It gets worse. I have not read or heard a single climatologist or meteorologist who believes that carbon dioxide plays any role whatever regarding the bogus global warming. As I frequently remind readers, there is no global warming. The Earth has been cooling, due to natural factors, for the past decade.

This is why, behind the scenes, the producers of “clean” or “alternative” biofuels are in a state of panic. There is no justification for ethanol, no matter whether it is produced from corn or cellulose. The same goes for biodiesel fuel.

Who keeps insisting on raising the mandates for the use of these “green” fuels? The Environmental Protection Agency.

Slowly, in the wake of the huge financial disaster called the United States of America, costly former priorities, many sold on the basis of stopping the dreaded global warming, are finally being examined by newspapers and other media. It’s only taken since the late 1970s to finally get around to it, but better late than never.


Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass'

Exclusive New Video: Calls cap-and-trade an 'horrendous scam' -- Joins other left of center scientific and activist dissenters

This article first appeared in CLIMATE DEPOT. The author, Marc Morano has been villified for some time because of his work on this issue. It must be satisfying for him to see his position ratified by time and reality. RK

Monday, July 26, 2010

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot,  Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.  

Watch Rancourt video here.

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said.

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

Environmental censorship

Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me -- they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.
Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm. (Note: Rancourt also ridicules environmental concern over acid rain and the ozone hole. See below)

“They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet -- a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists...looking for lies to hitch onto.”

“The modern environmental move has hijacked itself by looking for an excuse to stay comfortable and stay away from actual battle. Ward Churchill has called this pacifism as pathology,” he explained. “If you are really concerned about saving world's forests or habitat destruction, then fight against habitat destruction, don't go off in tenuous thing about co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Actually address the question; otherwise you are weakening your effect as an activist.”

Gore's film makes him 'ill'

Rancourt openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all,” Rancourt said.

Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”

Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone -- as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice.

Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. The scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government. Their goal is find a is a political process.” [Editor's Note: Climate Depot's Executive Editor Marc Morano appeared on Dr. Denis Rancourt's Radio Show for One Hour in May 2010: Morano: The global warming narrative...was total bunko, it was a con job...a scientific scandal of the highest order']

Carbon trading is 'an horrendous scam'

Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade.

“Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes. I have great distrust for it. It is not motivated by true concern for social justice and the environment. It can only be about powerful financiers. I see it as an horrendous scam,” Rancourt said, adding he “I completely agree” with UK environmental guru James Lovelock who called carbon trading “verging on a gigantic scam.”

But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with.

“They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,” Rancourt said.

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.

“When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this -- your career depends on it,” Rancourt said.

Some Key Excerpts from Denis Rancourt:

Left-wing Env. Scientist & Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt: Some Big Lies of Science – June 2010

Rancourt Excerpt: Environmental scientists naively and knowingly work hand in hand with finance-corporate shysters, mainstream media, politicians, and state and international bureaucrats to mask real problems and to create profit opportunities for select power elites...I exposed the global warming cooptation scam in an essay that Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation called 'one of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective.' [...]

My essay prompted David F. Noble to research the question and write The Corporate Climate Coup to expose how the media embrace followed the finance sector's realization of the unprecedented potential for revenues that going green could represent. [...] I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass.”

Rancourt Ridicules Ozone Hole Claims: 'Do you know of anyone who has been killed by the ozone hole?'

Rancourt Mocks Acid Rain Claims: As a physicist and Earth scientist turned environmental scientist, I could not find an example of a demonstrated negative impact on lakes or forests from acid rain. In my opinion, contrary to the repeated claims of the scientist authors, the research on acid rain demonstrates that acid rain could not possibly have been the problem' – I concluded it had been a fake problem. [...] Acid rain very, very similar to global warming. A Sanitized problem. What I found, researched from the 1950's on and I concluded that is had been a fake problem. The effect on lake acidity from acid rain was so subtle so difficult to measure -- virtually impossible to measure [hype about acid rain was] at a period when forests being destroyed by real things.

Rancourt is not alone among left-of-center scientists and activists from dissenting on man-made global warming. (Excerpts from 2009 Environment & Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sen. James Inhofe speech)

Sen. Inhofe: It is becoming increasingly clear that skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue. In fact, many scientists and activists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" or "hijacked" the green movement.

In August 2009, the science of global warming was so tenuous that even activists at green festivals were expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, 'I'm not sure climate change is real,'” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

The left-wing blog Huffington Post surprised many by featuring an article on January 3, 2009, by Harold Ambler, demanding an apology from Gore for promoting unfounded global warming fears. The Huffington Post article accused Gore of telling "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind" because he claimed the science was settled on global warming. The Huffington Post article titled "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" adds, "It is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers," not the skeptics.

The Huffington Post article continues, "Let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day."

UK atmospheric scientist Richard Courtney, a left-of-political center socialist, is another dissenter of man-made climate fears. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Courtney declared in 2008 that there is "no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHG (greenhouse gases) and global temperature."

Joining Courtney are many other progressive environmentalist scientists:

Former Greenpeace member and Finnish scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a lecturer of environmental technology and a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland who has authored 200 scientific publications, is also skeptical of man-made climate doom. Ahlbeck wrote in 2008, "Contrary to common belief, there has been no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent datasets. But so far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." (LINK)

Scientist and life-long liberal Democrat rejects climate fears

Life-long liberal Democrat Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. "As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote. "The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false," Hertzberg added. (LINK)

Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, publicly announced he voted for Gore in 2000 and said he would do so again. But Giegengack does not agree with Gore's science views and states that global warming does not even qualify as one of the top ten ENVIRONMENTAL problems facing the world, let alone one of the top problems. "In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. (LINK)

'Intellectual blasphemy'

Other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack.

Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the alleged global-warming consensus on the political Web site, arguing that there's no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature. After publicly speaking to reject man-made warming fears, Cockburn wrote on February 22, 2008, "I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy." Cockburn harshly critiqued the political left for embracing climate alarmism. "This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left's optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political program. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice," Cockburn wrote. [See: A July 2007 and a March 2008 report detail how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - (LINK & LINK )

CNN – not exactly a bastion of conservatism – had yet another of its meteorologists dissent from warming fears. Chad Myers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims on CNN in December. "You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant," Myers said during "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on December 18, 2008. " Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we're going to die from a lack of fresh water or we're going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure," Myers explained.

Myers joins fellow CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano, who compared Gore's film to 'fiction' in 2007, and CNN anchor Lou Dobbs who just said of global warming fear promotion on January 5, "It's almost a religion without any question."

Perhaps the biggest shock to the global warming debate was the recent conversion of renowned French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre from being a believer in dangerous man-made warming fears to being a skeptic. Allegre, a former French Socialist Party leader and a member of both the French and U.S. Academies of Science, was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, but he now says the cause of climate change is "unknown." He ridiculed what he termed the "prophets of doom of global warming" in a September 2006 article. (LINK)

Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books, and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States. He now believes the global warming hysteria is motivated by money. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" he explained.

'Hijacked' environmental left

Left-wing Professor David Noble of Canada's York University has joined the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now believes that the movement has "hyped the global climate issue into an obsession." Noble wrote a May 8, 2007, essay entitled "The Corporate Climate Coup" which details how global warming has "hijacked" the environmental left and created a "corporate climate campaign," "divert[ing] attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement." (LINK)

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, converted from believer to a skeptic about global warming. Bellamy, a committed environmentalist, now says that shift cost him his career at the BBC. Bellamy said in 2008, "My opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science. There's no proof, it's just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs." (LINK)

Geologist Peter Sciaky echoes this growing backlash of left-wing activists about global warming. Sciaky, who describes himself as a "liberal and a leftist" wrote on June 9, 2007, "I do not know a single geologist who believes that [global warming] is a man-made phenomenon."

Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member, has also joined the ranks of the dissenters. “It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way," Moore, the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in 2006. (End Inhofe Speech Excerpt)

Marc Morano


1875 Eye Street, NW

Fifth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20006


Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. Even if those comments are positive.


Saturday, July 24, 2010

The Other Side of the Biodiversity Debate

Posted by Rich Kozlovich

I would like to draw your attention to a new page that James Marusek has added to his site called, The Other Side of the Biodiversity Debate, where he lists a number of links to articles that deal with these issues:
• The Science: Is the Diversity Theory Set on a Foundation of Quicksand
• It’s All About Control
• The Profiteers
• Why is Man to Blame

Monday, July 19, 2010

Is Embracing Science the Same as Embracing Facts?

By Rich Kozlovich

I came across an old file folder of my posts of days gone by. I have been reviewing these posts, links and articles and other articles that I have written over the last ten years and I find that I am as upset now as I was then. I have decided to republish this one.

This is a merger of two articles that first appeared in July of 2006. I couldn’t get an airing by the trade journals then and it is too late now. Since I have a much broader base of readers now than I did then, I wanted to reprint it since I still view our situation as precarious now as it was then. Possibly worse! RK

A recent article by Alan Caruba appeared in Pest Control’s Buzz Online news service entitled “Endless Environmental Lies” which demonstrated how the environmental movement and EPA are simply somewhat less than truthful and can’t be trusted. I invite you to peruse this article to see if you found anything “glib”, unethical, dishonest or untruthful in this article.

Thereafter Dr. Colleen Cannon, staff entomologist for Fridley, Minn. based Plunkett's Pest Control sent a letter to the editor in Pest Control’s Buzz on Line regarding the importance of embracing science because she decided Alan Caruba’s article diminished us as an industry. Her article was titled “Science Is Our Ally — Not Our Enemy”.

Alan doesn’t really need any help from me, but he also doesn’t normally reply to these types of letters, therefore I felt it was important for someone from the industry to speak up on this matter.

This article criticizing Mr. Caruba’s article implied that those who criticized EPA or the environmental movement were “glib” and were unwilling to “embrace” science. Why? The fact is that so many in our industry reflect this same kind of 5th columnist mentality.

Miss Cannon’s comment that we need to embrace “good science” is a comment we can all embrace. However I would like to point out the following. Miss Cannon was a bit “glib” herself in her challenge of Mr. Caruba’s article. I also found her “Dan Rather Defense” of scientific journals, whose objectivity has regularly come under attack in recent years, rather interesting. Pointing out who receives money from whom is an old environmentalist trick to cast aspersions on someone’s integrity without having to present any evidence of wrongdoing.

Personally, I appreciate the fact that large corporations have decided that enough misinformation is enough. Who would you expect to pay for it; the Environmental Defense Fund, (now known as Environmental Defense) which takes a large deal of the blame for the elimination of DDT and the 10’s of millions of deaths that followed. They have no credibility with anyone in the pest control industry that has followed these issues, so I decided to break her statements and arguments down and analyze them.

I am fascinated by the words these people use and how they use them. I wonder if they ever look them up in a dictionary when they write this stuff. So it is clear that we need some dictionary work here.

Let us start with the word glib. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary glib means: (All definitions are from this dictionary)
Glib 1. “marked by ease and informality” and “showing little forethought or preparation” clearly “lacking depth and substance” with “ superficial solutions to knotty problems” further “marked by ease and fluency in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful.” (Actually, this sounds like an environmentalist to me.)
In this very short article (you don’t get long articles in trade journals) Alan outlined very succinctly what is going on with the environmental movement. Miss Cannon failed to refute one point with any evidence to the contrary. Is that being “glib”? Would one call this a “superficial” response “lacking depth and substance”? How did she describe the article? “The general tone and lack of useful content made it little more than a diatribe.”
Diatribe - a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing 3 : ironic or satirical criticism
I defy anyone to find his article to be bitter, abusive, ironic or satirical, but even if it was; the question that should concern us is if it was factual or not. The word “diatribe” is an emotional trigger, which allows her to avoid presenting any evidence that would legitimately contradict statements made by Mr. Caruba. She presented no evidence other than her personal philosophy.

Why is it that whenever someone takes a strong stand against the conventional wisdom, in this case the EPA and the environmentalist’s claims, those arguments are called diatribes? Ranting and raving are favorite terms from that side of the room also, implying irrationally screamed nonsense! Again, this allows the accuser the luxury of not having to challenge their adversary’s statements with contrary facts. Why? Since they are clearly and obviously irrational no contrary evidence is necessary. Convenient isn’t it?

I would find it interesting as to what Miss Cannon would consider information that would prepare a technician to answer the questions of customers in the field “accurately and intelligently”. Should they say that what we are doing causes cancer? Should they say that the long-term effects will be detrimental especially to their children? Should they say that pesticides aren’t necessary? That is what the environmental movement is saying and it is all lies. Then again, perhaps this is what she believes, since she offered nothing in rebuttal to all of Mr. Caruba’s comments regarding the safety of our water supplies.

It isn’t “glib” to point out that the EPA and the environmental movement has perpetrated a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations through lies, which the media has helped perpetrate. It isn’t glib! It is tragic! Especially to all those who have died needlessly as a result of actions by the environmental movement and EPA.

She went on to say, “The author (Mr. Caruba) suggests that the EPA, news media, environmental groups and scientific journals are conspiring to spread misinformation and mislead the public on the facts.”

I love it when they use the word conspiracy. This has such a vile connotation that it automatically places the accused person in the category of an irrational nutcase which once again doesn’t require them to provide legitimate information by way of refutation. Alan never once used the word conspiracy. Let’s however explore this concept.

According the dictionary:
Conspire “implies a secret agreement among several people usually involving treason or great treachery” requiring one to “join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement” which would require a scheme. That being a “secret plan or program of action” which implies a plot which is a “plan secretly devised to accomplish an evil or treacherous end” and “implies careful foresight in planning a complex scheme” suggests “secret underhanded maneuvering in an atmosphere of duplicity” implies “a contriving of annoyances, injuries, or evils by indirect means.”
The question we have to ask now is this. What is the difference between a secret plan with evil intent and a secret understanding with evil intent? Is it really any different than an open plan and an open understanding with evil intent? The difference is the same in the end.

I doubt if there are any, and I have no knowledge of any secret meetings between these groups, or any secret planning sessions either. This is not a secret conspiracy. This is an open paradigm. The EPA, the environmentalists and the media are engaged in a philosophy that is a conspiracy of paradigms to all who are willing look. They contrive to promote policies that will ultimately be detrimental to humanity because they are all true believers who have become imbued with the environmental litany. Their conspiracy is an open conspiracy of paradigms. Since they all think alike they promote the same junk science.

The EPA has never been a true scientific entity since its inception. In February of 1970 then President Nixon stated in a speech that he had taken steps to eliminate DDT. He then formed EPA in December of that same year, nine months after his original declaration. Seemingly, with his marching orders in place the first director of EPA William Ruckelshaus, an environmental activist, banned DDT in December of 1972 in spite of the fact that a federal magistrate ruled that there was no evidence to support claims against DDT. Ruckelshaus admitted two years later that the decision was based on political considerations, not science. EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations ever since. The fact of the matter is that almost everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie.

Ever since that very successful effort by the environmentalists the pattern has been the same, as Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D. notes that there are seven steps to this process and usually follow this pattern:
1. Create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it
Peer review, which Miss Cannon rightly points out, is to eliminate scientific errors and fraud was never part of the DDT saga at EPA. Rachel Carson’s book first appeared as excerpts in New Yorker Magazine, not a scientific journal; unfortunately she died before real scientists using real science shredded her information. Ruckelshaus admitted two years later that he made the decision for political reasons and there was no science to support that decision.

The same pattern was repeated when “Our Stolen Future” was released. As a result Endocrine Disrupters were all the rage in the scientific journals and at EPA, which became the basis for part of FQPA. Afterwards it was found that the Tulane study which this was based on was a fraud. The regulations remain in spite of that.

She further comments that “Granted, one may quibble with the objectivity of the news media”. The media is now and has always been muckrakers. The word objectivity and the word media should only appear in the same sentence to show how little objectivity they are capable of. The old adage about never believing what you read in the newspaper didn’t come about by accident. The fact of the matter is; the media lies; not only the lies of commission, but mostly lies of omission. During the Dan Rather exercise in media objectivity a great deal of information came out showing just how the media views objectivity.
A reporter, Brian Ross, asked Marla Mapes (worked with Dan Rather on the Bush military service story) if she believed the story regarding Bush’s military service was true.   She stated “The story? Absolutely.”  Ross found this incredible and asked is “this story to be up to your standards”.

This is an important point!

Mapes stated "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."

Does this take you back? It should.

Ross asked “"But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"   Mapes responded by saying that “they haven’t been proven false.” Ross asked what most of us would consider obvious, “Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?”

And now the quote of the year!!!! Mapes says - "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
I don’t know how any reasonable person could call this “quibbling” about media objectivity. This is not an aberration. It is the way they do business and it seriously affects events.

She intones further by saying, “the EPA may not perform flawlessly.”

Flawlessly? How about fraudulently? We could easily start and end with DDT to show all the fraudulent intentions in the world, but that was just the beginning of their fraudulent actions and they have continued on in this course ever since. The latest exposure of their “less than flawless” work is currently being demonstrated. Let’s note some obvious examples of their less than flawless work.

Second hand smoke.

For the record; I believe smoking, and all tobacco use, is one of the greatest banes of mankind. I also believe that smoking is the leading cause of cancer and that second hand smoke plays a part in this saga or at the very least is unhealthy. However, EPA made claims about second hand smoke in a “1993 report claiming to link secondhand smoke with lung cancer” that was clearly flawed and they had to know it. This “study that was eviscerated and vacated by a federal court in 1998 because the EPA’s science was so poor and contrived in nature.”

Steve Milloy’s article of July 27, 2006, “The EPA's Polluted Science” goes on to say, “The EPA typically decides first whether to regulate, and then it molds and manipulates the science to fit its regulatory decisions. This has long been standard practice at the agency – a 1992 report entitled “Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions” by a blue ribbon panel of scientists reviewing the EPA’s use of science concluded that the EPA “adjusts science to fit policy” – and was one of the reasons given by the federal court for vacating the EPA’s secondhand smoke risk assessment.”

The fact that I believe tobacco in all forms and practices is detrimental doesn’t mean that I wish to embrace junk science and deliberate fraud. This isn’t a little mistake, this is a pattern.

Let’s talk about dioxin.

“Although dubbed "the most dangerous chemical known to man" incredibly this was based entirely on the acute toxicity (poisoning) to a single species of animal -- guinea pigs. In humans incredibly massive doses have never been shown to cause any long-term damage besides severe acne, as was the case with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2004.

This article went on to say: “In other words, the EPA can't just choose a formula because it's convenient and serves its political ends. It can't ignore the results of myriad animal and human studies and the determination of how a certain chemical affects human cells in favor of simple mathematics. Nor can it apply that formula because it favors environmentalist groups who make a living by terrifying us into believing that a single molecule of this or that threatens the existence of "peoplekind."

The less than “flawless” performance regarding the EPA’s activities continues:

“That's because while it's long been accepted that for acute toxicity that "the dose makes the poison"  the EPA uses as a rule for all potential carcinogens that if exposure to a rat of something at a level of, say, a quart a day for 30 years is cancer-causing then exposure of a hundredth of a gram a day for one week must also be carcinogenic to humans. No matter that FDA doesn't advise against women taking a daily iron pill because if they took 100 daily they would die.”

The American Council on Science and Health article dealing with this subject and EPA’s “science” behind determining what is carcinogenic shows more than just a few errors at EPA. Is it a conspiracy to continue to use science that is recognized as unscientific?

ACSH sued EPA over the manner in which they determined what is carcinogenic. What was EPA’s comment to the ACSH’S lawsuit over this issue? They stalled having to respond for 90 days and then gave themselves and extension to avoid this issue. “Finally, in early March, two weeks before their final self-imposed deadline, EPA replied with a dodge, claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are

not statements of scientific fact –and thus not covered by the IQA – but merely statements of EPA policy. “One might have hoped that science and policy would go together at the world's most powerful regulatory agency “.  In my mind at least, EPA is saying; we make it up as we go along according to our whims and desires.

Cannon further states, “one may disagree with the goals of environmental groups”.  Well, most people would gladly and willing state they disagree with liars. This discusses the origin of Greenpeace and the kind of people it draws and their goals. Here is a quote.“Hunter would later confess in his book, The Greenpeace Chronicles.   Wrote Hunter: "We painted a rather extravagant picture…tidal waves, earthquakes, radioactive death clouds, decimated fisheries, deformed babies. We never said that's what would happen, only that it could happen." Hunter nevertheless justified the organization's calculated mendacity on the grounds that "children all over Canada were having dreams about bombs." A lie was therefore justified by the greater environmentalist good. It would not be the last time that a Greenpeace activist would invoke that rule to justify a deceitful campaign.”

Environmentalists and their philosophies.

Did you ever wonder from what source their philosophical drive is derived? What is environmentalism if not a form of religious fervor? This link is to a commentary that will probably shock those who have not seen this type of information n the past. Below are some interesting quotes.
1. "Saying homo sapiens are a `plague species,' the London Zoo opened a new exhibit featuring--eight humans. We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man's place in the planet's ecosystem." (Human Beings: Plague Species; WorldNet Daily, 2005)
 2. "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." (Earth First! Journal editor John Daily)
3. "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

4. "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States." (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)

5. "Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, (we) can only hope for the right virus to come along." (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)

6. "Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged because death does not deprive them of something they value." (John Harris, Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics, University of Manchester, England
She continues to defend her view by saying, “but lumping peer-reviewed scientific journals, like Science, into this group shows a deep misunderstanding of science.”

How can one have a deep misunderstanding of science? Science means; “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. “

The implication is that this knowledge is true and factual because it has been proven by use of the scientific method of experimentation and observation. How can one misunderstand something so simple? As Mr. Spock would say in one of the Star Trek episodes, “if I drop a hammer in a positive gravity atmosphere, I don’t have to see it land to know in fact that it did”. Why? Because that is what happens over and over again. What if we now see trade journals (that is what these peer reviewed science journals really are) continue to favor certain philosophical views over others in spite of growing evidence that is contrary to the ones they keep promoting? Can we then lump them together with the environmentalists, the media and the EPA with all their flaws? Is there an issue that clearly shows this to be the case?

Global warming and the hockeystick debacle is exactly such an issue.

This report gives a black eye also to the IPCC and to the peer-review process of the science journals which supported the Hockeystick graph and it’s creators.  “You may recall that Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) was much maligned when he wrote a letter to the authors of the Hockeystick (Michael Mann et al), asking for answers about their publicly funded research. He and his US House Committee on Energy and Commerce were accused of McCarthyism, intimidation, and other crimes by Democrats, the “scientific establishment,” and by liberal Republicans. The National Academy weighed in with a report that mildly criticized the Hockeystick (see TWTW June 24 and July 1, 2006).”

“Then the US Cavalry appeared over the hill, in the form of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University , who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They have now produced a report that devastatingly demonstrates what we sceptics knew all along, that the hockey stick is pure nonsense.

So much information has come out since 2004 showing just how corrupt these “scientists” were then, and how corrupt they and their defenders continue to be. Their intellectual dishonesty smells to high heaven, and yet sanctimony continues within their ranks and of their defenders. Perhaps jail time will change all of that. Fraud is still a crime in most states, and the state of Virginia is perusing this. It is unfortunate that the researchers of the fraudulent Tulane endocrine study weren’t prosecuted. After all, they took public money and produced junk science that has impacted us to this day. As to why they weren’t prosecuted…we can only guess, but since they were producing the very kind of junk science that EPA wanted I have to assume the worst possible collusion.

Should we embrace science? Of course! Science that has been tested through observation and proper peer review without prejudice or preconception is to be prized. Unfortunately so much of what is going on fails to meet these criteria. Those who are a part of the pest control industry who fail to see this and continue to promote and defend junk science and junk scientists must be exposed as 5th columnists who will undermine who and what we are until there is no long any “we” left.

It pains me that we have no one in a position of responsibility in the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries who is willing to take up the shield and sword in defense of our industry and use real science to publicly denounce those inside or outside of our industry who promote junk science.

She is correct, the elimination of pesticides and global warming are the two main issues of the environmental movement. Unfortunately they are lying on both of these issues, and she apparently has bought into all this greenie nonsense lock, stock and barrel. What the heck, let’s add the Montreal Protocol, IPM and Green Pest Control in for good measure.

What we need is a debate. Let’s start with IPM. Let’s do it at an NPMA national forum. Let’s do it before the stakeholders of our industry, the pest controllers, the manufacturers and the distributors and after all has been done and said; let the industry decide.

No, I am sorry, Mr. Caruba’s comments do not reflect badly on our industry. What reflects badly on our industry are those in pest control don’t know whose side they are on and in a effort to appear so much more enlightened than the rest of us end up doing nothing more than undermining us. Embracing the green movement and being in pest control is like having two diametrically opposing views in your head at the same time and believing they are both correct. That is a definition of insanity.  When we start embracing science in place of facts, we are embracing a Golden Calf.  An irrational and misanthropic one at that!

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. Even if those comments are positive.


Science Is Our Ally - Not Our Enemy

Originally published in Pest Management Professional magazine

By Colleen Cannon 26 Jun, 2006

I am writing to express my dismay that you saw fit to publish Alan Caruba's Endless Environmental Lies piece as your Web Exclusive in The Pest Control Buzz Online on June 12.

Pest control technicians often face questions from clients on the dangers posed by pesticides. They would certainly appreciate having sound answers to those sometimes difficult questions. Regrettably, the information in the piece would not prepare a technician to do so accurately and intelligently. The general tone and lack of useful content made it little more than a diatribe.

Very glibly addressed were two important and scientifically complex issues: the environmental fate of pesticides and global warming. The author suggests that the EPA, news media, environmental groups and scientific journals are conspiring to spread misinformation and mislead the public on the facts. Granted, one may quibble with the objectivity of the news media; the EPA may not perform flawlessly; and one may disagree with the goals of environmental groups — but lumping peer-reviewed scientific journals, like Science, into this group shows a deep misunderstanding of science.

The journal, Science, is neither a news magazine nor a magazine of popular culture. It is perhaps the world's most prestigious and respected publication of peer-reviewed scientific research. Peer review, the crucial last step in the scientific process, ensures that all published articles are vetted by multiple, independent experts. Those who review for Science and other peer-reviewed scientific journals are not cronies who work together to advance a pet agenda. They are internationally known and highly esteemed members of the world's scientific community. The peer-review process, though not infallible, is open and self-correcting. It is without question the most successful system humanity has developed for weeding out faulty and dishonest work.

I also take issue with the choice of expert cited in the piece. Patrick Michaels is a scientist whom the author quotes on global warming. However, the author fails to mention that three organizations with which Michaels is affiliated — The Cato Institue, Tech Central Station and the Marshall Institute — received substantial amounts of money from ExxonMobil for "climate change support," according to several Web sources, including the Environmental Defense Fund.

The June 12 Web Exclusive reflects poorly on our industry. If we adopt this sort of anti-science thinking, our customers will put us in the same club as the tobacco industry, which denied the science linking smoking and lung cancer, and the auto industry, which fought the science behind seatbelt standards. We do not want that.

Pest management professionals place great value on education and on science. There are increasing numbers of us with continuing education coursework and post-graduate degrees. We know that science is our ally — not our enemy — in this business.
Is Embracing Science the Same as Embracing Facts? This was my response to Dr. Cannon's article, which PCT did not publish.


Endless Environmental Lies

Originally published in Pest Management Professional magazine

By Alan Caruba 12 June, 2006

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to tell you that, years ago in the 1980s, I worked for a producer of a particularly effective pesticide that was applied with nothing more toxic than water. It is now, like so many other pesticides, not available to pest management professionals (PMPs) because it was literally forced off the market by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — which insisted millions of dollars of testing be repeated for its continued registration. The company decided it just wasn't worth it.

I have served as the public relations counselor to a state pest management association that began in 1941, when its founding members decided they needed to better understand the science involved with combating one of the most-ancient vectors of disease and property damage — the billions of insect and rodent pests that besiege us to this day. Over the years, the New Jersey Pest Management Association (NJPMA) has invited scientists to educate its members to better serve their customers.

So, when I read yet another anti-pesticide news story in our daily newspaper, my first reaction was to heave a sigh of disgust and turn the page. My next reaction was the same one that caused me to create The National Anxiety Center to dispute the endless environmental lies designed to influence public opinion and policy: I got angry.

Our local paper claimed: "The nation's streams and rivers, from the midwestern corn belt to the Hawaiian Islands to the suburbs of New Jersey are infused with dangerous pesticides, the U.S. Geological Survey reported yesterday." If you read no further than that first paragraph you would, like millions of other Americans, conclude that your health was endangered. You would be wrong.

Like all such newspaper and other media stories that sound the warning claxon, you have to read further to discover there is no danger. Further into the story, you would learn that, "To what degree the findings represent a threat to human health is not certain. Most concentrations detected did not exceed federal human-health benchmarks." That was paragraph eight. In the next paragraph, the article notes that, "How the compounds may interact in the human body is poorly understood."

And, if you read still further, you would find a quote from Jay Vroom, president of Croplife America, that "Normal water purification procedures used by municipalities would remove most traces of pesticides." The key word here is "traces," because the measurements trumpeted in the first paragraph reflect a million parts per gallon and even a billion parts per gallon. Translation? — In reality, there is so small a presence of pesticides that they constitute no health threat whatever. Moreover, your local water company removes those trace elements before you ever drink them.

So why then is the sidebar to the article titled "Drink at your own risk"? To scare you.

That is the single operational mode of all environmental organizations and the data they serve up to the mainstream media that cleverly puts the scare in the first paragraph, confident that you are not likely to read to the end of the story, nor even understand that the threat they are describing is non-existent.

In a similar fashion, the nation's leading science magazines have become so debased by their alliance with environmentalists that one can no longer trust their latest "news." A case in point is a recent issue of Science that reported Antarctica is melting. Two weeks earlier, it reported that Greenland was also losing big chunks of ice. Run for your life, the sea level is about to swamp all the coastal cities of the world.

As Patrick Michaels noted on Tech Central Station, however, "Natural variability is sufficiently large on yearly and multidecadal time scales that it is simply impossible to conclude that anything other than natural variability is at play in either of those two stories." In other words, a study based on the last three years of ice mass cannot possibly be taken seriously. Unless, of course, you are an editor for Science.

If you are a scientist who follows such variations, you would know that over the course of the past several decades, the ocean-land system of Antarctica has been experiencing a growth in the amount of snow and ice.

The lies the environmental movement has put forth over the past few decades can and does fill entire libraries. They have been aided and abetted by the mainstream media that knows that scary news sells newspapers and attracts views and listeners.

Summer is near. Billions of insect and rodent pests are about to debut once more to plague homeowners, apartment dwellers, businesses and everyone inbetween. It's a good time to keep the phone number of your local pest management firm — protectors of both the environment and public health — on the speed dial.

Alan publishes serious commentaries daily at Warning Signs.  A site worth reading daily.  RK


Tuesday, July 13, 2010

EPA Goes Ape Over Power Plant Emissions

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.  I wish to thank Alan for allowing me to re-publish his work.  Alan blogs daily at Warning Signs, a site worth visiting daily.  RK

By Alan Caruba

Not a day goes by without our being told that something is going to kill us. Much of what kills people is genetic; little time bombs in our DNA that determine the state of our health.

Anyone who reads the daily obituaries knows that Americans are living longer than any previous generation. Most of the population is dying of nothing more sinister than old age.

The diseases that kill Americans have been quantified and known for decades. At the top of the list is heart disease, followed by a variety of different kinds of cancers. Third in line are strokes. Chronic lower respiratory diseases such as asthma are next, but nothing more than accidents kill as many people.

The remaining factors include diabetes, Alzheimer’s, pneumonia, nephritis (kidney diseases), and septicemia, a disease of the blood.

What do Americans really die from? Genetic dispositions to illness. Accidents. Poor diets. And bad lifestyle choices that include smoking, drinking, and taking illegal drugs.

With the exception of asthma that affects about seven percent of the population none of this has anything to do with air quality. Indeed, the causes of asthma remain somewhat shrouded in mystery even if the symptoms do not.

None of this empirical knowledge and data has the slightest effect, however, on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Lung Association that profits greatly from any claims about air quality. Both are inclined to making wild claims.

In early July, the EPA announced proposed cuts in “pollution from power plants in 31 states and D.C.” This is not about air quality. It is part of the long-term attack on all sources of power in America, but most particularly the coal-fired plants that provide just over fifty percent of all the electricity on which Americans depend for everything!

Depriving Americans of electricity would trigger a tsunami of deaths in the form of heat stroke in the summer months or freezing in the cold of winter. That, however, is the actual objective of the EPA and the many environmental organizations that wage ceaseless propaganda campaigns and endless law suits whose sole purpose is to deprive Americans of this vital source of power.

The EPA claims that infinitesimal particulates from power plant emissions, specifically sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) “harms the health of people “living downwind” of power plants. They propose reducing such emissions by 71 percent over 2005 levels of SO2 and fifty-two percent of NOx.

This is in line with the crazed and fraudulent claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing global warming and thus requires the huge tax on energy sources, the Cap-and-Trade Act making its way through Congress.

The claims are the typical exaggerations of all proposed government regulations. The EPA claims that their latest action would yield “more than $120 billion in annual health benefits in 2014, including avoiding an estimated 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million days when people miss school or work due to ozone-and-particle pollution-related symptoms.”

There’s a very impolite word to describe these kinds of statistics.

They are the same kind of statistics the Obama administration has been conjuring while it blew through a trillion dollar “stimulus” program with no real effect on the economy. These are the same kind of vacuous statistics behind the promise of new jobs, the takeover of healthcare, one-sixth of the nation’s economy, the takeover of the auto industry, et cetera!

Everyone wants clean air. The effort to achieve it began over three decades ago and it has been a success at the same time the U.S. gross domestic product increased 156 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 143 percent, energy consumption increased 45 percent, and the population increased 36 percent.

Cracking down on coal-fired plants is a political act. It has no relation whatever to any need to reduce particulates for the general population.

When the American Lung Association talks of preventing “tens of thousands of premature deaths each year” it is engaged in the worst kind of exaggeration and fear-mongering.

Because Americans are rightly concerned with issues involving jobs, mortgages, auto payments, and all the real threats to their well-being, the EPA knows it can sneak through draconian regulations that, in normal times, would be and should be stopped in their tracks.

The EPA and environmental organizations are the enemy of economic recovery. They are the true cancer on the body politic.

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Going Green - What’s it all about?

By Rich Kozlovich

I never read a book, other than a comic book, until I was fifteen. From that point on reading became a passion for me and I have been an avid reader ever since. Winston Churchill’s, “The Valiant Years” and “To Kill a Mockingbird” were two of my favorites at that time. I even gave an oral book report on, “The Ugly American”, which was extremely popular in the early sixties. Impossible as an oral book report, although I got a “B” on the report because the teacher was impressed that I made the attempt and was able to answer her questions. I still remember giving that report because it was really stinko.

However, I never liked school and could only be described as a poor student and a trouble maker, so perhaps I missed something in class about profitability, responsibility, intelligence, courage, and persistence, clarity of vision and what those qualities have to do with real leadership. One thing I know for sure; I didn’t miss anything about common sense; so will someone once again please explain to me why we want to be green?

Somehow, everyone has lost sight of what the goal of a for-profit company should be. Profit! The business of business is to do business. Business is not in business to do good! If you do good business then you can distribute those profits and the stockholders can then do whatever darn good they choose. Especially since “doing good” is highly subjective.

This article isn’t really about politics or environmentalism, although both are the vehicles for that which really is the one truly relevant issue always facing us; truth. In an old article of mine I quoted Ben Franklin’s famous saying, “Truth will very patiently wait for us”. A prominent Ohio pest control operator, who can only kindly be described as being “green”, took offence with my article and challenged me with this question, “What is truth?”

Well, here is my view as to what constitutes truth.

Truth is that which is supported by facts, supported by events, past and present. Truth is that which can stand the test of time under the scrutiny of honest researchers…..meaning everyone, not just scientists; especially those who haven’t become contaminated by government grant money. Truth should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Truth should have a history. Spin and the “latest philosophical flavors of the day” are unlikely to be truth.

This brings me to this point. Who decided we should become green? I see it being promoted in the trades all the time. Why is it we never see articles in the trades that show the devastation that becoming green causes?

Here is an interesting quote that I would like to share with everyone that explains much of what “going green” is all about.
"The youthful following, attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the "movement" became a significant factor" ... "Youth was indignant over the difficult and frequently unfair conditions of life, the manifold limitations of the times. The "movement" provided them with an outlet" ... "They protested against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation..." "It was a truly religio-psychological phenomenon. Just as the concept of "belief" occupied a central place.." "Hitler appeared as the exponent of a new sense of life. - K.D. Bracher
If we were to replace “Environmentalism”, with “Hitler” would the description be any different? Being “green” in pest control is like having two diametrically opposing views in your head at the same time and believing they are both correct. This has been described as insanity, because to be green is to be irrational and misanthropic….and that is truth.

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.


Friday, July 9, 2010

Have We Lost Our Minds?

By Rich Kozlovich

Some years back Burt Prelutsky  wrote an article entitled “Those poor, poor perverts”.   The basis of the article was a discussion as to how ridiculous are the arguments surrounding pedophiles and how they are to be treated by society.

He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.

Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer:
 “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks. He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?” We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”! Are they really all that credible; so credible that we willingly abandon traditional values, common sense and moral balance? Where is our moral compass?

As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar mindset that has permeated society that really is nuts. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. We also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement! The group that our industry must have concerns about are the greenie activists; those inside as well as outside our industry.

They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and those who should be at the fore front standing against this nonsense turn into cheerleaders, and everyone eats it up. We are willing to accept nonsense from these people because the media is on their side. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money; IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors. The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support.

Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it; and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him and they did. They stated that “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.

Do we as an industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe that we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry say publically; when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.

A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise, and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up.

I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from some other greenie group attacks us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.

If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year, but they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25%,  And this will go on, and on, and on until you no longer have anything to give up.

When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance, you don't lead and you may not be able to leave the dance floor. Why don't we get it?

If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view; ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda? They are the anointed! They know best about all things. They truly believe that their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Theirs is the “vision of the anointed”, and must not be ignored, no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they have promoted; they clearly are the 20th century’s greatest mass murders and are working just as hard in the 21st century to maintain that status.

Ford Motor Company found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico”; continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker”; continuing to make SUVs; and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.” Let’s not kid ourselves; what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, out of business. What do they want from us? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and are working hard to accommodate them.

If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it is the pesticide application industries that have saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?

I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences; if that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all the greenies and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world where their policies hold sway? If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a greenie want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals?

They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, all organic food, no pesticides, no air conditioning. Will there be many takers? Few if any!  You can be sure that the greenies will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.

To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky ; “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say?"

 The notion that society would be safe if the ideas and philosophies of the green movement is perfectly loony.” And yes!  We really have lost our minds!